2013/11/19 11:07:52
spacey
what you may think about what I'm thinking about...
 
I was wondering when others study music what they
think about rote learning vs critical thinking and then wondered
not only which direction they may tip but also if they knew of another...
which I believe to be an excellent method for enjoying while learning to create music.
 
( I can't wait for the jokes that will follow this :) ....so hurry lol.
2013/11/19 11:14:11
craigb
I can't believe you assume we think.
2013/11/19 11:18:18
spacey
lol....now that we've laughed...what cha think?
2013/11/19 11:18:34
craigb
As for more of a *GASP!* real answer, I look at music as if it's like a table with multiple legs holding it up (where each leg represents an area to be learned:  Music theory, learning an instrument, rhythm, sound processing, mixing, recording, harmony, physical ability & accuracy, ear training, etc.).  You can only go so far on one leg before things are unbalanced and you need to catch up in other areas.
 
The whole process is a very iterative thing.
2013/11/19 11:23:05
spacey
?....but aren't we wondering about the processes that
one would, could, maybe use for any of the areas you mentioned?
 
 
 
For the sake of simplicity avoiding confusion maybe best to limit wondering to one specific
area..."learning to play a guitar".
Now that doesn't mean "limits" to anything such as theory.
2013/11/19 11:42:53
Karyn
My Dad's favorite saying when listening to a "musician" who announces "...and I've never had a lesson in my life..." is generally "Yes,  and it sounds like it".
 
I've never had a guitar (or cowbell) lesson in my life, but I have had lessons on piano and trumpet, so I've been taught music theory which I can apply to any instrument.
Learning to play a specific instrument is a mechanical thing like learning to touch type. Learning how to make music with that instrument requires a lot more which is best learned from a teacher in a structured way.
2013/11/19 11:47:34
spacey
Can an example for each of the two be given?
 
1. Rote
2. Critical
 
And I may mention what I believe to be a third latter...if this makes it that far.
 
2013/11/19 12:38:34
UbiquitousBubba
In my opinion, there is a difference between conceptual learning and muscle memory training.  In addition, different people have different learning styles.  A kinetic learner will study concepts in a different manner than an auditory learner.  The nature of the instrument we study colors our understanding of music and music theory.  
 
I'm a drummer, so my approach to studying a piece of music is to hear it in pattern layers.  Even the most complex arrangements can be simplified by breaking them down and examining each layer individually.  Hearing the patterns, I can follow each line and how they interact with one another.  When I write a song, I "hear" each layer in my mind before playing a single note.  Obviously, others take a different approach.  
 
In high school, I started picking out notes on a piano in an attempt to explain parts to other musicians.  A pianist took pity on me and taught me a small amount of theory.  Armed with an insignificant amount of knowledge, I wrote some songs.  The pianist was fascinated.  "How can you write music with absolutely no idea what you are doing?" he asked.  I could only say that I tried to play the notes and chords I heard in my head.  He watched, fascinated, as I slammed the keyboard.  He would interrupt occasionally to tell me that some of my chord combinations should not have worked, but he thought they sounded great.  He explained to me that as a pianist, he thought of music in a certain way and it colored his concepts.  He also told me to stop hitting the keyboard so hard.  I had a lot to learn.
 
I've known musicians who lacked the music theory education to articulate their musical ideas.  I've also known musicians whose vast understanding of theory was not matched with their muscle memory.  For some, playing music is a mental/emotional exercise and the muscle memory technique is merely a tool for the job.  Others I've known enjoy the mastery of the technique more than the conceptual comprehension.  I can see that there is a certain degree of pleasure in both.  
 
When I'm learning concepts, I can't follow abstract discussions of music theory, but I can appreciate explanation coupled with demonstration.  When I'm studying muscle memory, I need it broken down in to simple pieces.  As I master each one at a slow speed, I can put them together and speed it up.  I've always believed as a drummer that if I can think of the part, I can play it.  To me, conceptualizing the layers of the drum part is essential to playing it.  When I'm playing, I'm listening to the layers; how the drum part interacts with the bass, guitar, keys and vocals.  Everything I'm playing shifts to the background, because I've already thought it through, and I'm thinking about what's coming next.  I'm listening for that build into the chorus, the drive into the bridge, opening up space in the verse, etc.  On the way, I'll sometimes imagine some fills that will fit where the song is going.  As I think of them, they are added to the overall pattern, and then I play them.  I never thought about which stick I would lead with, the mechanics of the fill, or even counting the time.  Instead, I thought about the feel of the song, leading the vocal to the climax of the chorus, snapping into the rhythm guitar's hook, nailing that downbeat with the bass, etc.
 
That's just me, though.  YMMV.
 
2013/11/19 12:45:14
The Maillard Reaction
I probably could have learned by rote if "they" had used the Nashville numbering system instead of those darn letters.
 
I think it was difficult to grow up during a time when the types of music, the complexity of arrangements, and the explosion of rhythmic variety one encountered was expanding rapidly. I found it very difficult to relate the lessons taught to explain a seemingly forgotten style of of music to what my ear was hearing day to day.
 
I never really got over that.
 
At some point I realized that many great musicians learned small bits at a time all while being able to sit in with ensembles of elders that could provide leadership. I learned to appreciate the tolerance and generosity of people who would let a newbie sit in and play a few notes or what have you in the back ground. I think learning what you need when you need it in an environment that already has music happening is a good and useful circumstance for a lot of folks that don't have a mindset for the by rote approach.
 
I have also learned to very much enjoy jamming with records. Doing so lets me play in far wider variety of styles than I can expect to if I rely on friends and acquaintances for new experiences.
 
I wish I had learned more "by rote" but I always seem to "stove up" when I encounter the abstract layer of letter names and the rote memorization they require. The number system and it's focus on relativity makes sense to me so I continue to try to learn what I can.
 
I also think that listening to a lot of music helps. When I solo a single note melody on my guitar I am often playing passages I have never tried before yet somehow my mind can sense a familiarity. I think this is built upon a foundation of listening to lots of music.
 
Not sure how any of this applies to the OP question. I just like to babble. :-)
 
all the best,
mike
 
 
 
2013/11/19 13:01:36
spacey
I didn't post this to question if one method was better than any other. I believe if one has time to
spend with music they're doing alright.
 
However I am questioning;
Can an example for each of the two methods be given?
 
1. Rote
2. Critical
 
And I may mention what I believe to be a third latter...if this makes it that far.
( "believe" because with "music" I'm not sure my understanding of rote vs critical is correct.)
 
 
 
© 2026 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1

Use My Existing Forum Account

Use My Social Media Account